SUNDHARI Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the daughter of third respondent. The third respondent along with her late husband Narayanan Nair executed a gift deed in the year 2012 in respect of property having 80 cents of land along with a residential building. It appears that the petitioner had carried out some renovation to the building. Petitioner says that she had expended more than Rs.6 lakh. Her husband is a retired officer from Research And Analysis Wing (Unit of Central Government). The mother, the third respondent approached Maintenance Tribunal to revoke the gift deed executed by her. The Tribunal revoked the gift deed. It is challenging this order, the petitioner approached this Court.

(2.) Petitioner would submit that since her father and mother had jointly executed the gift deed, the Tribunal could not have revoked the entire gift deed based on the option exercised by the mother. Admittedly, father of the petitioner is no more. It is appropriate to refer Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act. Section 23 of the Act reads as follows:

(3.) As seen from the above provision, revocation is based on the option of the transferor. That be so, if the mother had alone exercised the option, the Tribunal could not have declared the entire gift deed as void covering the gift executed by the father of the petitioner as well. In that regard, the petitioner is right in submitting that the Tribunal went wrong in declaring entire gift deed as void. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, the Tribunal had jurisdiction only to declare the share of the mother in the gift deed as void. Thus, that extent the impugned order is liable to be interfered.